FAO-4263-2007 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM-8337 & 8338-CII-2025 IN/AND FAO-4263-2007 (O&M) Date of Decision: 23.05.2025 Kamla Devi and another ......Appellants Vs. Rajesh Kamal Dhawan and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Paramveer Singh, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Suvir Dewan, Advocate for respondent No.2–Insurance Company. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. (ORAL) CM-8337-CII-2025 1. The present application has been filed under Section 151 CPC for condonation of delay of 104 days in filing the application for restoration of appeal. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 104 days in filing the present application for restoration of appeal is condoned. CM-8338-CII-2025 1. The present application has been filed seeking restoration of the main appeal bearing FAO-4263-2007, which was dismissed for want of prosecution, vide order dated 05.11.2024, passed by this Court. 2. Notice in the application. VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2025.05.29 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4263-2007 (O&M) -2- 3. Mr. Suvir Dewan, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the non-applicant/respondent No.2 and submits that he has no objection to the prayer made in the application. 4. In view of the no objection and for the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the main appeal i.e. FAO-4263-2007, is ordered to be restored to its original number and taken up on board today itself for disposal. FAO-4263-2007 (O&M) 1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 19.05.2007 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchkula (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) for enhancement of compensation granted to the appellants/claimants on account of death of Gurcharan Singh, who died in a motor vehicular accident occurred on 04.03.2005, whereby the appellants/claimants were granted compensation to the tune of Rs.2,29,500/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. 2. As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined to quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, a detailed narration of the facts of this case are not required to be reproduced for the sake of brevity. SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES 3. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants has made the following submissions:- VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2025.05.29 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4263-2007 (O&M) -3- i) That the amount assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side. ii) That Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is now substituted by Section 164 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act 32 of 2019 w.e.f 01.04.2022) and compensation should be enhanced as per the substituted statutory provision i.e. Section 164 of the Act. iii) That the present case is covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in FAO No.4301 of 2006, titled as “Akaljit Kaur and Others Vs. Parveen Kumar and Others.” wherein the claim under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was converted to Section 164 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act 32 of 2019 w.e.f 01.04.2022) by relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Murti and others Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board [2022(4) TAC 738] wherein it was held that Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act 32 of 2019 w.e.f 01.04.2022) provides for payment of compensation in case of death in the amount of Rs.5 lakh and in the case of grievous hurt of Rs.2.5 lakh. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company, however, vehemently argues that the award has rightly been VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2025.05.29 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4263-2007 (O&M) -4- passed and the amount of compensation as assessed by the learned Tribunal has rightly been granted. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case. 6. A perusal of the award shows that deceased-Gurcharan Singh was 20 years of age at the time of accident and was a student of B.A. Part-I, Government College, Kalka. Since Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is now substituted by Section 164 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act 32 of 2019 w.e.f 01.04.2022), compensation is liable to be enhanced as per the substituted statutory provision i.e. Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, therefore, the appellants/claimants herein are entitled to be granted the benefit of beneficial provision enacted by the Parliament under Chapter 11 of which Section 164 provides for payment of compensation in case of death in the amount of Rs.5 lakh and in case of grievous hurt of Rs.2.5 lakh. 7. Further, this Court in FAO No.4301 of 2006, titled as “Akaljit Kaur and Others Vs. Parveen Kumar and Others” held as under:- “11. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Murti and others Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board [2022(4) TAC 738] held that the appellants therein to be granted the benefit of beneficial provision enacted by the Parliament under Chapter 11 of which Section 164 provides for payment of compensation in the case of death in the amount of Rs.5 lakhs and in the case grievous hurt of Rs.2.5 lakhs. 12. This Court in FAO-195-2006 titled as Mamta and Others Vs. Happy and Others, decided on 29.05.2024, held that since Motor Vehicle statute is a beneficial legislation, the Judge should not go into the technicalities of the provisions, under which the application or petition is moved but should apply his judicial mind, as these are only the irregularities and not illegalities which cannot VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2025.05.29 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4263-2007 (O&M) -5- be cured. It has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the loss caused to the claimants or the relationship or to the victim of the limb cannot be compensated. Still the Court should make every effort by exercising its discretion empathetically. Further, Justice should actually be shown to be delivered by application of judicial mind with intelligence, prudence, care and caution and by showing empathy. The Court decision should be such that they strengthen the trust and confidence of public and litigants in judicial system and judiciary.” 8. In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed. Accordingly, the award dated 19.05.2007 is modified by converting the claim petition under Section 163-A (pre 2018 amendment) to Section 164 (post 2018 amendment) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. As such, the appellants/claimants are held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.2,70,500/- (Rs.5,00,000 – 2,29,500). 9. So far as the interest part is concerned, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shyam Singh Varma 2019 ACJ 3176 and R.Valli and Others VS. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (2022) 5 Supreme Court Cases 107, the appellants/claimants are granted the interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of its realization. 10. The respondent No.2-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest with the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The Tribunal is directed to disburse the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest in the accounts of the appellants/claimants, VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2025.05.29 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4263-2007 (O&M) -6- as per ratio settled by the learned Tribunal in its award dated 19.05.2007. The appellants/claimants are directed to furnish their bank accounts details to the learned Tribunal. 11. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company is directed to disburse the current scheduled fee to Mr. Suvir Dewan, Advocate, within a period of 20 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment, pursuant to the order dated 18.07.2024 passed in FAO-1682-2007 by this Court. 12. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE 23.05.2025 Virrendra Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2025.05.29 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document